The Court of Appeals has upheld the removal from the service of a ranking officer of the Bureau of Immigration in connection with the irregular issuance of Special Study Permits for foreign students.
In a 10-page decision, the CA’s Eleventh Division through Associate Justice Nina Antonio-Valenzuela dismissed the petition filed by BI-Baguio Acting Alien Control Officer Antonio Prieto seeking the reversal of the Ombudsman’s ruling issued on July 18, 2011, which found him guilty of dishonesty and ordered his removal from office.
While it affirmed Prieto’s dismissal, the appellate court modified the Ombudsman’s findings, saying the petitioner was guilty of gross neglect of duty and not dishonesty.
“Due to the petitioner Prieto’s reliance on the work of his subordinates, the petitioner Prieto did not notice the irregularities in the Special Study Permits, indicating the re-use of the official receipts. The petitioner Prieto’s acts showed a thoughtless disregard of his duty as the issuing officer and ranking officer of BI-Baguio, and the lack of even the slightest care in the issuance of the Special Study Permits,” read the ruling.
Under Rule 10 Section 50 of the Civil Procedure, gross neglect of duty is categorized as a grave offense punishable by dismissal from the service.
The case stemmed from the complaints filed by a certain Jose Yu Jr. against Prieto and his subordinates, Myra Santiago and Verna Soriano, acusing them of repeatedly re-using the same official receipts as supporting documents for applications for SSP and pocketing the money paid by the foreign students.
For his part, Prieto admitted signing the permits after payments made but said he did not have direct participation in the preparation of the SSP and did not collect payments for it.
Prieto claimed his only participation was merely affixing his signature on the SSP and that he relied on Santiago and Soriano to ensure that the permits he signed were in order.
The Ombudsman subsequently found Prieto and Santiago guilty of the offense and ordered their dismissal from the service.
“A head of office who did not prepare an official document, but merely signed based on the recommendation of his subordinates, which official document turned out to be containing false information, is liable for gross neglect of duty,” the appellate court held.
